Tue Feb 27 13:35:00 GMT 2007
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 01:55:09PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >Does anybody have a good argument to keep this cruft against all reason?
> *cough* cygwin v2 *cough*
So, when the major version number increases, we'd now have cygwin2.dll,
which would have a different shared memory region ID, mount table
registry key, etc... and so we'd have both cygwin1.dll and cygwin2.dll
present in /usr/bin, until such time as all apps linked against
cygwin1.dll got rebuilt from source (i.e. forever, or at least a
reaaaaly long time)? Would cygwin v1.x apps recognise v2.x apps and
play nicely and vice versa? And this would be a chance to drop a lot of
cruft that is currently there just for backwards compatibility?
I'm just trying to get an idea of what the logistics of such a bump
More information about the Cygwin-developers